IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 01 February 2018 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DEA12DA2B for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:53:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=DE8GuZwE; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=MXUWeubu
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xunLkqHtmJhm for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:53:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C553112D7EC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:53:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FCE2BE072 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:52:39 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1517518359; bh=yCDKyekWRF2OW/2hx+OHORWJR+lM0RroxKCSXTK/xy0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=DE8GuZwEvHNb9V5fItm042dHN0bJtCUjQTPZZqE9BmWDjGuQrGmIRCmweo57DLTqd Qqd8Sa8dt5HfaQflW5FDgJWNrIfRVXc98oVrdqZqPiCphl16RswqYlpbVXzt0hlUfS pibTl0DoW/sOkj8mK4DsqRWiIJaOu9fiWJEK2gR4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PPULcBrfoXZg for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Feb 2018 20:52:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 15:52:34 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1517518355; bh=yCDKyekWRF2OW/2hx+OHORWJR+lM0RroxKCSXTK/xy0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=MXUWeubuDTU5rgBXNj+eGKNTd/+YNvPNDuIxT7waij6kvVIo74p8+0PGfw1Ut/mL7 QXv8pJt48S9C8rr7YZ7gjHBFUZXaKdv6+6XmCepbU1W8JtcWRqel1bCXX0NHzWi9UW XR2+5g8441wZS7u3eRl81GO7Q+HNTHOCE0g8SsYk=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180201205234.GB27125@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <CAHw9_iKnD4WtTKyof=nm4ChmDZ5mAPqA7a_-m1t_Lauugf4Uow@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1801251505070.5022@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iJ-gwC1ZoWQ3YiJraD3eoUf-9-Ay--rPYzy1zWYUzvYmg@mail.gmail.com> <FDCED4D6-A7CE-465B-8344-CA89753ADF19@vpnc.org> <74C0CA59-6D53-4A60-ACBA-4AF5B51FE3FF@apnic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <74C0CA59-6D53-4A60-ACBA-4AF5B51FE3FF@apnic.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/IqLpD-lTq7-2lKGRwHh983LPnGk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2018 20:53:11 -0000

On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 07:20:45AM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> What about if the sentinel spec proposes to use a left-most label of the form(s):
> 
>     xm—-is-ta-[key]
> 
> and
> 
>    xm—-not-ta-[key]
> 
> 
> would this form of hostname be a reasonable way forward?

Only if you want to create an IANA registry of labels with two
ASCII-letter-range octets followed by two hyphen-minus characters.
One of the IDNA documents reserves everything of that form, alas.

This registry business might be a good tidying effort anyway, though,
so I'm not opposed.  Just noting that it's work that would be needed.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email